Faith in Action

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed, someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Issac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (The Letter of James, Chapter Two, Verses 14-26.)

I've always liked this passage from the New Testament. It is the biblical version of "Put up or shut up". Now, there is a very contentious history surrounding this passage between Catholics and Protestants, the latter of whom believe that it is faith alone and not our actions that "save" us. I honestly don't want to get into that discussion here, today, but I will just say that (a) I don't think it is even the author's contention that our actions alone will save us, and (b) the author's actual point still holds true: money talks, BS walks, so to speak. You can publicly proclaim your faith all day long, but do your actions support your claims? If, as you profess, you are a person of faith, how does that translate into any measurable increase in love, mercy and compassion in your community?

I ask these questions because of the many people in cultures around the world who represent all various faiths and religions who make public proclamations of faith and piety on the one hand, and then use their very faith to justify acts of hatred, violence and division on the other. I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again here: how can anyone believe that this is truly what God wants? Are we called to go to worship, recite prayers and sing hymns all to justify the advancement of a limited, personal agenda? Or do we do these things to openly acknowledge and respond to God's call to freely and gladly serve each other with love and compassion, regardless of creed, gender or race?

What if?... What if we have it backwards? What if devout adherence to any one faith or religion becomes an obstacle to the very peace and justice the religion espouses? What if our fixation on the merits and righteousness of our own faith traditions disables us from practicing the compassion and mercy that our faith traditions teach? What if, instead of imparting full and complete truth to any one people and religion, God has imparted partial versions of the Whole Truth to people across cultures and history? What if God's purpose for doing this is to challenge us to communicate across the divisions of race, culture and creed and to share the partial version of truth we have been given so that ultimately the Whole Truth might be revealed? What if the point isn't that One True Faith be established, but that God calls us all in unique and wonderful ways to know God and to reflect the light of God's presence in this world through our thoughts and actions? What then?

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Interfaith Youth Core.org

Faith In Action Volunteers.org

"Losing My Jihadism." Washington Post, July 22, 2007.

"Want to Understand Islam? Start Here." Washington Post, July 22, 2007.

"Honoring Many Paths." (Religious News Blog.com, December 21, 2005.)

Reacting to Religious Diversity: Religious Exclusivism, Pluralism and Inclusivism. (Religious Tolerance.org, May 20, 2001.)

Honor Killing: No Such Thing

There is nothing particularly brave about taking a stand in opposition to murder. It takes about as much courage as it might for any member of Congress to publicly state his or her support of puppies and kittens. Nonetheless, this is the most difficult subject I've taken time to write about to date, and words escape me in my attempt to address this subject in any meaningful way. The monstrous nature of "honor" killings is such that I truly wonder if there is anything intelligent anyone can say in response, other than that this ritual is so inhuman and unspeakably cruel as to be obviously far outside the realm of minimally passable human behavior. You can ask "why", as in why would anyone do such a thing, and yet only an eternal optimist would expect an answer that makes any sense or otherwise puts this form of murder into some type of appropriate context.

A very cursory Internet search using the term "honor killing" immediately and unfortunately yields a wealth of information about this sinful phenomenon. Its origins are primarily found in Islamic cultures of the Middle East. It is a tradition that has tragically migrated to the countries of Western Europe, and even to the United States.

I am not a Koran scholar of any sort, and won't attempt to delve into how the tradition of honor killing emerged from various interpretations of Sharia law. You can find further information about Sharia on the Council of Foreign Relations Web site, which includes specific information about those sins that the Koran specifically singles out for punishment.

The comment I would like to make is that, as a blog devoted to fostering interfaith dialogue and unity, it strikes me that "honor" killing is an extreme form of the type of violence that occurs when people of different faith traditions and beliefs cling too tightly to said traditions and beliefs. Name any faith tradition or religion under the sun, and each one is populated with a wealth of adherents who take a hard line on their particular beliefs and forms of worship. It's this exclusive mindset that leads the Catholic Church to declare that it, and only it, is the one and true right way to know and worship God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), the one and only path to eternal salvation. It is this mindset that sets off Hindu riots against Muslims in India. It is this mindset that fuels the violence between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. It is this mindset that pits the better part of the Arab world against the State of Israel and all of its supporters.

What are we doing? What is any of us doing when we have convinced ourselves that it is God who requires and sanctions any form of violence between and against other human beings? How convinced can any religion be that it holds the ultimate and complete truth about who God is and what God wants when this exceptionalist stance results in any form of violence and hatred perpetrated against people of different beliefs? How does any religion materially improve the lives of all of God's children if it is only intended to sanctify those who profess its specific beliefs? After thousands of years of bloodshed and violence committed in God's name, might it not be time for each of us to step back and examine those beliefs and traditions that facilitate peace and justice vs. those that perpetuate separation and violence?

Thankfully, religious differences do not always lead to violence and separation. In fact, harmony between different faiths and the resulting blossoming of love can occur in the midst of violent bloodshed and deprivation. Case in point: Sarajevo: if you can make it there you can make it anywhere! Actually, this might only be true in more recent times. In the period before the war, inter-ethnic and interfaith relationships were common and mainly not remarked upon. Would that it was so around the world in every culture and society.

To couples of different faith backgrounds who struggle to maintain loving relationships in the face of pressure, even violence, from family, friends, and faith, I say, God bless you. To the victims of violence, to those murdered (mostly women) for daring to love someone of a different religion than your family's, my prayer for you is that you would know peace with God despite having been murdered by those proclaiming to believe in God. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

International Campaign Against Honor Killings

"Thousands of Women Killed for Family 'Honor.'" National Geographic News, February 12, 2002.

Reclaiming Honor in Jordan, by Ellen R. Sheeley (Amazon.com)

"The Death of a Muslim Woman: 'The Whore Lived Like a German.'" Der Spiegel, March 2, 2005.

"The girl who was stoned to death for falling in love." Daily Mail (London), May 17, 2007.

"Father in honor killing found guilty of murder."
MSNBC.com, June 11, 2007.

"God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule." The Onion, September 26, 2001.

We're Not Number One, We're the ONLY One!

Yes, it's going to be pretty hard for the pope to show his face in public after the Vatican issued a statement today to clarify just who is and isn't a church as far as the Holy Roman Catholic Church is concerned. To wit, a document released today by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states that the Catholic Church is "the one true Church of Christ," and that other Christian churches (i.e., Protestant and Orthodox), are not actually churches since they "lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

Wow. For a German pontiff, Benedict is really getting his braggadocio on. But it all seems to be in keeping with his strategy of completely offending as many people of faith as possible. His reinstatement of the Latin Mass has upset both progressive Catholics as well as Jews who are not eager for the Church to resume praying for their conversion every Good Friday. Obviously this move had limited offensive impact, affecting only those Catholics who are still paying attention and those Jews who can still bring themselves to dialogue with the Church, which, until 1959, referred to them as "perfidious Jews" during each Good Friday liturgy. Today's move, however, is more far-reaching and guarantees that long-simmering tensions between Catholicism and the rest of the Christian world will boil over and erode any amount of rapprochement that has been achieved over the years. Seriously, why would any member of any non-Catholic Christian church have any interest in engaging with the Church which clearly considers all other faiths to be "less than"? This all reminds me of an Onion article that ran about ten years ago with the following headline: "Pope Calls For Greater Understanding Between Catholics, Hellbound."

I guess that His Holiness did not give a great deal of thought to the impact his pronouncement would have in places like Northern Ireland, where a fragile coalition government of shared power between Protestants and Catholics has, at very long last, begun governing this war-weary land. Ian Paisley, the divisive hate monger and leader of the extremist elements within Ulster's Loyalist movement, has opposed all attempts on the part of the English government to extend any semblance of civil rights protections to Irish Catholics unfortunate enough to live in Ireland's six northern counties. The pope's comments can only serve to enflame the hatred that Paisley and his supporters hold toward Catholics, and further endanger the already precarious position that the fledgling coalition government now occupies. What a thoughtful way for the pope to say "Thank You!" to some of the most devout Catholics in all of Europe, an embattled minority in British-controlled Ulster that has suffered under Protestant oppression for centuries all because of their Catholic faith. Thank us? No, thank YOU, your Holiness.

It is certainly the prerogative of the Church to hold this view of itself. However, I posed this question recently with regard to the reinstatement of the Latin Mass, and I'll ask it again in this context: what good, constructive purpose is served by making such a declaration?

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

"Vatican reiterates hardline on primacy of Catholic Church." WorldWide Religious News, July 10, 2007.

"Police pay for anti-Catholic bias." BBC News, July 9, 2007.

"Two Former Enemies Are Sworn in to Lead Northern Ireland’s Government." New York Times, May 8, 2007.

It's All Greek to Me: Unkosher Jesus and the Latin Mass

A number of Unkosher Jesus readers have recently been kind enough to submit comments in response to the Unkosher Jesus post on the reinstatement of the Latin Mass. With so many comments on this one post, I wanted to take some time to respond. As I wrote on the introductory blog post, "Unkosher Jesus readers will have the opportunity to comment on each post. Inappropriate comments will be removed- each reader is welcome to state his or her disagreement with the contents of any particular post, even strongly, but please do so respectfully and in the spirit of advancing, not halting, any given discussion."

Now, some readers didn't adhere to all of the posting guidelines. Some comments seem more to have to do with being critical, if not constructively so. Nonetheless, Unkosher Jesus remains committed to the notion of providing an open forum for the discussion of diverse points of view, and so all comments have been posted. Again, I would simply urge readers to take a more constructive stance when submitting comments, as this will add to, rather than detract from, any discussion fostered by the topics presented herein. Also, I do have a preference for people to post with a name and not anonymously. Online screen names are even preferable to Anonymous.

But, enough of my yakkin'. On to the comments.

Maria said...
"I am 57 years old. I was there when the Traditional Mass was replaced with this man made mass called the Novus Ordo. You say that the Church needed to be reinvigorated? I never saw that. The Mass needed to be "modernized"? For whom? The modernists, the liberals, the protestants? Yes absolutely. But not for Catholics. Maybe it is the Holy Spirit that has the Pope's ear. Maybe the Holy Spirit has decided it is time for the return of the One True Mass."

Unkosher Jesus sez: "Man made Mass"? Each and every Mass liturgy is man made, so I'm uncertain as to the distinction referred to here. As to whether or not the Church needed to be reinvigorated, you are entitled to think otherwise, but I submit for your consideration that the Pope and the College of Cardinals certainly did think so.

Johnny Womack said...
"I'm not at all surprised by your reaction, and I shall pray for God to remove the scales from your eyes. You see Doug, what Benedict is doing with the Motu Proprio...THAT is what Vatican II called for. :-)
The Motu Proprio is Heaven sent. I'm overjoyed that the Holy Father is protecting the truth of the Catholic faith, and Doug, I bear you NO ill will. God bless you!"

Unkosher Jesus sez: I am surprised that you are not surprised, Johnny Womack, seeing as how we do not know one another. As for Benedict's Motu Proprio, I feel that one good Latin turn of phrase deserves another: non sequitur. As in, Vatican II called for a future pope to single-handedly decide to reinstate the Missale Romanum?

Catholig said...
"I just wanted to comment that while I do NOT reject the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae or Vatican II I, for one, would appreciate a return to tradition. I mean this Mass was celebrated for centuries and is the Catholic Mass. We shouldn't be aiming to please other religions or christian denominations, but only our God in heaven."

Unkosher Jesus sez: My question is: is it pleasing to God in Heaven when a religion, any religion, structures its rite of worship in such a way as to sanctify only those who participate in that rite and recite it prayers and creeds? My comments with regard to other religions reflect my own concern that the Catholic Church is unnecessarily damaging ecumenical relationships that have flourished between it and other faith traditions in the years since the completion of the Second Vatican Council. I personally would have to think that God finds it more pleasing when human beings of all races, cultures and faith traditions find common ground between themselves and coexist in peace and harmony versus when members of any particular religion decide to worship in one fashion or another. So, again, the question I asked is: whom does Benedict think that he is serving by reinstating the Latin Mass? Catholics who he already has a relationship with, or the whole of humanity that Pope John XXIII urged the Church to recognize and serve through its mission of salvation?: "Today more than ever, we are called to serve mankind as such, and not merely Catholics; to defend above all and everywhere, the rights of the human person and not merely those of the Catholic Church. It is not that the Gospel has changed: it is that we have begun to understand it better... the moment has come to discern the signs of the times, to seize the opportunity and to look far ahead."

veganvixen052507 said...
"I believe that you are a bit confused as to what the MP will state. The hope, at the very least, is that the MP will allow priests to celebrate the TLM without having to ask permission from the Bishop. As it stands, most diocese have at least one TLM, while others offer a Latin NO. Part of the MP is to bring the schismatics back to the fold of the Church. I invite you to find a Latin Mass, either a TLM or a Latin NO in your area (available at Latin-liturgy) and attend. Pax Christi!"

Unkosher Jesus sez: Thank you for the invitation. I do in fact understand that Pope Benedict is not requiring that parishes celebrate Mass exclusively in Latin, and is merely allowing for the option should any parish choose to worship in this manner. As for praying for the conversion of schismatics such as Orthodox and Protestant Christians, it is my humble opinion that this might in fact simply be counter-productive and will create barriers, not dialogue, between the churches. You are a devoted Catholic and would not take kindly to the knowledge that any non-Catholic is praying for your conversion. Why would you not assume that members of Orthodox and Protestant churches are any less devoted to their faiths than you are to yours? Why would they be any less insulted by the Catholic Church's notion that they need to be prayed for in the first place?

Anonymous said...
"Why comment- all are deleted anyway- shame on the OP. Ken"

Unkosher Jesus sez: It does not protect your anonymity if you sign your name to your submission. Anyhow, I am happy to post this comment along with all others. Thank you for reading Unkosher Jesus and taking the time to comment.

Cory Lang said...
"You mention the Second Vatican Council as the reason for "freezing" the Latin (TLM) Mass. Where in the Council's documents does it say such a thing?

"Also, reading Article 36 of "Sacrosanctum Concilium" says as follows, "1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." How is the Catholic Church enforcing this article?

"There are people who do not understand Latin, and that is fine. However, for those who do understand Latin, why are they repressed when in the same document in Article 54, those people are encouraged to continue to pray parts of the Mass in Latin, "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

"Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

"Sounds to me that the Second Vatican Council is yet to be implemented. Thank you and have a good day."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Please forgive the misunderstanding. I did not state that the Second Vatican Council is the reason for freezing the Latin Mass. What I wrote about is my concern over the fact that the Church is reinstating a liturgical form that has been frozen in time for over four hundred years. That, in my humble opinion, makes the Latin Mass a relic that bears no relation to the lives and concerns of many modern-day Catholics, nor does the reinstatement of the Latin Mass serve any constructive purpose insofar as interfaith relations are concerned. The Second Vatican Council was an attempt on the part of the Church to broaden its own means of engagement with the entire world, not only the Catholic portion of it (sizeable, though it may be). I am not a knee-jerk, unthinking reactionary who advocates for gutting a tradition, any tradition, simply for the sake of doing so. In the case of the Latin Mass, and in the broader context of engaging Catholics and non-Catholics alike, I simply ask: what is the good purpose of reinstating this liturgical form?

Anonymous said...
"I don't understand how B16's effort to allow more free access to the Old Mass is causing so much fear. If people do not want to go to it, they don't have to. If Benedict was imposing it as the ordinary form of Mass, I think your arguments might be more of a concern.

"The reality is that Vatican II's documents never called for the (pre-Vatican II) Latin Mass to be "replaced by a liturgy celebrated in the Mother tongue," as you put it. Sacrosanctam Consilium stated that there could be limited use of the vernacular, but that Latin was to be retained as the language of the Roman Rite, Gregorian chant was to be given pride of place in the liturgy, and the people should know all their parts of the Ordinary of the mass in Latin that pertain to them. The current rite of Mass can be celebrated in Latin (and the Vatican officials have repeatedly said that this SHOULD be done in obedience to the Council).

"As for the enthusiastic support from the laity, I think that is not the best way to look at it. Look at whether or not there has been a surge in holiness and devoutness. Vocations in this country are 1/10th of what they were before the Council. Confession lines are short while Communion lines are always full (I guess we have a bunch of people ready for canonization - or maybe a bunch of sacrilegious communions going on). Parish devotions are muted (rosary, benediction, etc....). Priest scandals. 25% of Catholics attend Sunday Mass versus 85% before the council. Yeah, let's just stay the course.

"Benedict's actions are exactly what this Church needs. We need to come down out of the clouds and take an honest look at reality. What we have been doing hasn't been working.

"The pendulum has swung too far, and now it's moving back to center."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Please see my comments above, after the previous post, as I feel these address many of the points/issues that you raise. As for a surge in holiness and devoutness, I would say that (1), religious vocations are only one such way to measure whether members of any society are holy or devout, and (2) correlation is not causation. That is to say, if religious vocations have declined in the years following Vatican II, what evidence do you have to support your contention that the reforms of Vatican II are directly responsible for this decline?

Brennan said...
"The reforms instituted by Vatican II met with enthusiastic support among the laity,..."

Really? And is that why Mass attendance plummeted from 75% to around 25% after the Council?

Unkosher Jesus sez: Please see my comments above. Thank you for submitting your comment.

Andrew C. said...
"You'd be surprised how many people do in fact like the classical Roman Rite. You'd also be surprised at the number of people who, with a little education, would like to see it come back-and/or the Novus Ordo celebrated according to the actual norms of Vatican II and not the hype created by the 'spirit of Vatican II' (i.e. Latin, priest celebrating ad orientem, use of the communion rail, Gregorian chant etc.).

"The 'Revolution' has failed. The upcoming priests and seminarians are much more in line with tradition than their predecessors. While the progressives may lament Pope Benedict XVI's 'lurch to the right', we have wandered in the desert of liturgical innovation and faulty theology for more than 40 yrs. Its about time that we come into the promised land.

Unkosher Jesus sez: You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all want to change the world. Actually, I think that Pope John XXIII and the Cardinals who participated in the Second Vatican Council would be very surprised, and perhaps amused, to see themselves characterized as a troupe of Che Guevara hippy radicals. I feel as though your comments reflect a completely Church-centric point of view, and while I recognize how much you and many others value the traditions of the Church, I will simply repeat what I wrote in my earlier post on this topic: "...whatever flaws inherent to this process (the Second Vatican Council), the willingness (on the part of the Church) to engage in honest and open dialogue with lay Catholics, with other Christian churches, and with non-Christian faiths was not one of them. Pope John XXIII's vision for the Church was that it fulfill its potential for greatness by adopting a more expansive view of its own mission and striving to meet the material and spiritual needs of believers and non-believers alike. Benedict's rightward tilt gives me the impression that the Church has now abandoned that stance and is only willing to meet the needs of its most fervent and unwavering supporters. What a tragic, and wholly unnecessary, blunder. What good can the Church do for the world when it is only relevant unto itself?"

Anonymous said...
I have no problems with your opinion on this blog but PLEEEASE do not revise history. VII had never said anything about "freezing" or abrogating the Tridentine Mass. Never was anything mentioned about changing the Mass. In fact the Novus ordo was created AFTER vatican II. I am absolutely AMAZED at the opposition to the Tridentine Mass. I am a Novus Ordo person and will likely never attend a Tridentine Mass but for the life of me I scratch my head at the opposition to the old rite.

Unkosher Jesus sez: Again, please forgive my for any misunderstanding. My intention is not at all to rewrite or otherwise misrepresent history. In the case of the use of the term "frozen in time", this is simply in reference to the fact that the Latin Mass has not changed since it was formally adopted as the official Church rite in 1570.

Anonymous said...
"While I appreciate your perspective, it's simply not pastoral.

"The pope has to take care of the religious needs and preferences of all Catholics -- that includes Catholics whose religious needs are best met by an older Catholic liturgy. As long as a liturgy is not connected with heresy or schism (e.g., denial of Vatican II or the legitimacy of the Mass of Pope Paul VI), there is no reason to suppress it.

"You do not have to go to the older liturgy, but it would be uncharitable to deny it to others. A sign of a good pastor is that he seeks to meet the needs of all the flock, which perhaps is why Benedict XVI is pope and you aren't."

Unkosher Jesus sez: It certainly does fall within the pope's purview to administer to the religious and liturgical needs of Catholics. However, are you contending that Catholics are the only constituency that he must consider when rendering a decision on the liturgical form of the Mass or on any other topic? The Catholic Church spans the globe. As the self-proclaimed Body of Christ on Earth, does it not have a responsibility to minister to all people just as Jesus did? In this context, is the reinstatement of the Latin Rite a help or hindrance to the Church's relationship with other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths, particularly Judaism? Are not all the people of the world members of God's flock who are also worthy of ministry? As for the reasons that explain why Benedict is pope and I am not, well, I'll need to devote a separate blog entry for that discussion...

Anonymous said...
"I am a 34 year old former cafeteria Catholic who had his heart changed by the Latin Mass. I have many friends and know of many other "younger" Catholics who have wanted and prayed for this for a very long time. You are very misinformed a little more research should have been done before posting such nonsense."

Unkosher Jesus sez: Thank you for your comment. I would like to steer your attention to the comment submission guideline that speaks to the submission of comments "respectfully and in the spirit of advancing, not halting, any given discussion."

Anonymous said...
"You are a post VII Catholic? You do not have a clue."

Unkosher Jesus sez: God is vast and mysterious, and all that we think we know about God does not even begin to give us the slightest, vaguest notion of the reality that lies beyond the grasp of our perceptions and intellect. In this regard what you say is true about me as it is true about all of us. I thank you for your submission.

Thank you all once again for taking the time to read Unkosher Jesus and to share your thoughts and comments. I hope that Unkosher Jesus continues to be a thought-provoking forum that stimulates discussion while providing space for people from all faith traditions, including no faith tradition, to journey together in the search for unity among all people. Shalom.

Doug L.



FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

"Pope revives old Latin mass, sparks Jewish concern." The Boston Globe, July 8, 2007.

ADL Calls Vatican Prayer for Conversion of Jews 'A Theological Setback' and 'A Body Blow to Catholic-Jewish Relations'. Anti-Defamation League, July 6, 2007.

"Hold your breath for the next media frenzy: The Latin Mass document is coming." National Catholic Reporter, April 20, 2007.

"Jesus Christ: The Nice Jewish Boy Your Mother Never Told You About." (UnkosherJesus.net, April 23, 2007.)